Manappuram Finance Limited vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Admission (Home)
Before:
Hon'ble Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
Listed On:
29 Oct 2021
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No. W.P.No.25081 of 2021
| Sl.<br>No. | DATE | ORDER | OFFICE<br>NOTE |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) | 29-10-2021 | CMR, J. | Transferre<br>d to I.O.<br>Folder. |
| Learned Government Pleader for Home takes notice | |||
| for respondents 1 to 4 and requests time to file counter | |||
| affidavit. | |||
| Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India takes | |||
| notice for respondent No.7 and requests time to obtain | |||
| instructions. | |||
| Issue notice to respondents 5 and 6. | |||
| Post the matter after two weeks. | |||
| I.A.No.1 of 2021 | |||
| The petitioner herein is a Company incorporated | |||
| under the Companies Act and it is in Non-Banking | |||
| Financial business.<br>It appears that a case in Crime | |||
| No.351 of 2021 of Suryaraopet Police Station, was | |||
| registered<br>against<br>some<br>accused<br>for<br>the<br>offences | |||
| punishable under Sections 403, 419, 420, 406, 120-B | |||
| r/w.34 of IPC and Section 4 of Prize Chits and Money | |||
| Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.<br>During the | |||
| course of investigation, a notice under Section 91 | |||
| Cr.P.C. was served on the petitioner on the ground that | |||
| the accused, who were arrested in the said crime, | |||
| confessed that some of the property relating to the said | |||
| offence<br>of<br>cheating,<br>was<br>kept<br>in<br>the<br>petitioner's | |||
| company during the course of its business and thereby | |||
| directed<br>the<br>petitioner<br>to<br>furnish<br>the<br>information | |||
| sought for relating to the said crime within two days | |||
| from the date of receipt of the notice and also requested | |||
PROCEEDING SHEET
the petitioner not to conduct auction in respect of the said property or sell away the said property until further orders.
The petitioner now seeks to challenge the validity of the said notice issued under Section 91 Cr.P.C. in the main Writ Petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the information sought for in the said notice has been furnished to the Investigating Officer and even after furnishing the said information, the Investigating Officer has been insisting the petitioner to produce the gold relating to the said crime before him and he is only orally insisting the petitioner to produce the said gold.
As can be seen from the impugned notice served on the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C., no direction was given to the petitioner by the Investigating Officer to produce the said gold before him.
Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be an interim direction to the Investigating Officer not to insist the petitioner to produce the gold in question before him till the next date of hearing.
_________ CMR, J. cs